73% support the "Buffett Rule"

[Openmind]

No, the antisemitism reaching back a thousand years.



Antisemitism is rampant here to be sure, a European export.





Perhaps if Euro governments had validated the stories of what the Nazis were doing things might have been different. But the truth only came out when my father's Army company discovered and liberated the Ohrdruf Concentration camp. (The first discovered by the Allied Forces.)

As to involvement in hostilities, there was still a bad taste after WW1 so it was a hard sell.

There you go. . .blaming the victims again!

Obviously the American government KNEW about the holocaust before they helped liberate the camps. . .Even the American public had a chance to know about it, but was just not "that interested!"

Many argue that Americans did not know about the Holocaust as it was happening. This paper reveals the tragic truth of how the American government and the media, mainly the New York Times, knew of the atrocities happening in Europe while they were occurring and decided to either keep it from the American public or bury them within the news. Even when the media did decide to print stories of the happenings, they left out major facts including that Jews were the main targets. This piece shows the power the media and government have over the public and how the use of their power depicted the results of genocide.

There have been many arguments made that Americans did not know about the Holocaust during the time it was occurring. Schoolteachers now use textbooks to teach about the horrors of it and the millions that died at the hand of Herr Hitler. Movie directors have made numerous films about the genocide and heroes of it as well. However, evidence proves that both the media and the government knew of the genocide by the Nazis in Europe as it was occurring, but did not effectively provide the American public with the information so that they could take a stance.
Newspapers played a major role in the ignorance of the American people during the Second World War. Many articles were printed about the Holocaust from the beginning when Hitler declared his mission to destroy Jews to the discovery of Auschwitz and the liberation of the concentration camps. However, most of these articles were buried within the paper and only an avid reader would have seen them. Even those worthy enough to make the front page may not have even conveyed that the Holocaust targeted Jews. Jews even wrote formal letters of help to the Allied powers and told them of the mass destruction of their people, but this was barely newsworthy in the eyes of journalists at the time.
Newspapers simply did not portray the news to the American public so that they could understand the full effect of the Holocaust. Perhaps, if the media had done their job and truly informed Americans, millions of Jews may not have been completely wiped from the earth.
Numerous historians have argued this point. Historian and academic Laurel Leff said in her essay When The Facts Didn’t Speak For Themselves: The Holocaust and the New York Times, 1939-1945, “The Jews’ desperate cry was never more than an indistinct buzzing in the world’s ears. The message for contemporary journalists is clear: If the world is to have even a chance to hear, the press must shout” (71).

The Tragedy of the S.S. St. Louis www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/stlouis.htmlCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Though many German Jews had emigrated in the preceding years, the Jews ... By 1939, not only were visas needed to be able to enter another country but ... The opportunity that the S.S. St. Louis presented seemed like a last hope to escape. ... were two other ships (the Flandre and the Orduna) carrying Jewish refugees ...

 

[dogtowner]

There you go. . .blaming the victims again!

Obviously the American government KNEW about the holocaust before they helped liberate the camps. . .Even the American public had a chance to know about it, but was just not "that interested!"

Well even more reason for Europe to pipe up to counteract the antisemitism here. I'm not denying antisemitism here, why do you deny it there ?

 

[Openmind]

Well even more reason for Europe to pipe up to counteract the antisemitism here. I'm not denying antisemitism here, why do you deny it there ?

Where did I deny it? I even said that it is because of a resurgence of "neo-nazism" that the Belgian government (among others) had instituated that law!

ONCE AGAIN: prejudice and hatred exists in EVERY country, every group of people, every religion.

Some countries do something about it. . . other don't!

 

[GenSeneca]

Anyway, this isn't entirely related to the issue at hand, but I think it's important to point out, given the tendency for individuals (apparently such as yourself) to use the framers as a scapegoat so they can avoid having a serious discussion of these modern issues and their merits or lack thereof.

First, welcome to the forum. As to the topic...

I would enjoy an actual discussion about the issue based on merit but most people tend to shy away from such challenges... Let's find out if you will as well.

So lets get back to basics. If the rule will benefit our economy, than why shouldn't we prefer it to a tax on the needy, that is, increasing their burdens by decreasing programs they rely on like medicare or food stamps?

I will address your comments about the "needy" at the bottom of my post.

As to the "rule" you mentioned, I will presume you are talking about the "Buffet Rule" as described by Obama. You say "IF" the rule will benefit our economy... I see no evidence that such a "rule" would provide any benefit.

As it applies to the Progressive Income Tax (PIT), historical data from the CBO certainly doesn't support the claim that raising the top marginal rates results in an increase of revenue as a % of GDP. As it applies to the Capital Gains Rate, historical evidence actually shows that increasing the rate causes revenue from the tax to drop. Therefore I would ask that you qualify your assertion.

Based on your use of the word "IF", you seem to be admitting that you don't actually know whether or not the "rule" would benefit the economy, this suggests a serious lack of research on the subject. So I fail to see the "merit" in tossing the dice, crossing our fingers, and hoping for the best by enacting such a policy.

You say it is unfair, and yet it seems significantly more unfair to ask those who have nothing to make meaningful quality-of-life altering sacrifices while asking millionaires to sacrifice less than their middle-class secretaries.

The line about millionaires paying less in taxes than their secretaries is a spotlight fallacy. Even Buffet himself said that the type of "rule" he was advocating would only impact about 50,000 of the wealthiest people in America. In contrast, Obama's "Buffet Rule" would affect everyone making over $250k/yr, which would impact millions of Americans, far more than what Buffet was suggesting.

As for fairness, it is unfair that 53% of Americans are forced to pay income taxes while the other 47% are not. A flat tax that forced all Americans, regardless of income, to pay the same % of their income in taxes would be the dictionary definition of fair: Without bias, prejudice, or favoritism.

And think of it in another context. Let's say we were on a sinking ship (lets call it the America ).

Your analogy is fundamentally flawed. However, let's say the America is a ship, our government is the engine, and tax revenue is the fuel.

Right now, the top 1% is being forced to contribute 40% of the fuel being consumed by the ship, the top 10% is being forced to contribute 75% of the fuel being consumed by the ship, and the bottom 47% is contributing absolutely NO fuel for the ship, instead, the bottom 47% is draining away over 60% of the fuel that goes into the fuel tank.

So we have 53% of Americans being forced to contribute 100% of the fuel while the other 47% are not forced to make fuel contributions of any kind, in fact they drain away 60% of the fuel. People like you see our fuel shortage as the fault of the 53%, those who are already forced to provide 100% of the fuel, you complain they are not being forced to contribute enough.

So why don't you switch that Marx quote for an American one: "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Because the Marx quote is more appropriate for the policies you are advocating.

Back to the "needy" people you mentioned, you certainly aren't telling them to 'ask not what the country can do for them but what they can do for their country'... Instead you're telling them to 'ask not what they can do for themselves but what government can do for them' (at the expense of someone else).

 

[GenSeneca]

I disagree. Words can kill. . .and have killed.

Dogtowner accurately pointed out that only ACTIONS, i.e. physical force, can violate rights. Words cannot violate rights of, much less kill, any individual.

 

[dogtowner]

Dogtowner accurately pointed out that only ACTIONS, i.e. physical force, can violate rights. Words cannot violate rights of, much less kill, any individual.

And there is a pretty high bar to clear to convict of conspiracy.

I think my Mom said it best "sticks and stones can break your bones but words can never hurt you".

And I have to say that if banning free speech is the answer to neo-nazism than you have done nothing but make yourself feel better.

 

[Openmind]

Perhaps you don't understand, governments are social contracts.

I like your new signature! Great quote!

 

[Dr.Who]

So, you see Europe (France, England, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Italy, Spain) as "totalitarian monsters?"

What people call European socialism is not the socialism I was referring to. They are not technically called socialism. But it is worth noting that they are more totalitarian than the US.

Our 'false" capitalist system (false, because it is no longer based on "free market," but on "manipulated market") is hurting people. . . .the wealthy get wealthier AT THE EXPENSE of the poor. And that trend is speeding up.

I agree. And the fault lies with the manipulation not with the principles of free markets. So who are the manipulators. I agree that big business approaches congress with money in hand asking for favors. It is the job of those who actually have the power and make the laws to just say "no".

You accuse the poor and the middle class (the 99%ers) to want to TAKE ALL the wealth away from the top 1%!

There may be some who would take ALL of it. But I have not made that accusation and in general don't think it is true.

It does not matter since wanting to take ANY of someone elses wealth for reasons that are not authorized in the constitution is a violation of their constitutional rights.

You say "redistribution of wealth" is not constitutional. . .

It is not constitutional.

and yet redistribution of wealth is exactly what has happened (thanks to the Bush administration's policies that gave all rights to the wealthy to pursue MORE wealth at infinity, with fewer and fewer regulations, with attacks on organizations that make attempts to protect the disenfrancised, with tax policies that strongly favor the wealthiest among us) but in the direction of the poor to the wealthy!

You appear to be presenting this with so much bias as to make it grossly inaccurate. But I would love to see a thread on it. Go start a thread. I will support you in any circumstance where wealth was redistributed from anyone to anyone no matter who the people are.

I do NOT believe that that sort of "runaway greed" was the intent of our forefathers! And. . in a society where the govenment has had the power over the last 10 years (longer even) to "favor the wealthy,"

You are right. They had in mind two mechanism for checkin that greed. 1. free markets, 2. the church. Both have been under attack and then people wonder why there is abuse.

What is wrong with requesting a govenment that puts a stop to that "runaway greed" and begin to level off the amazing inbalance between the abilities of the poor and the middle class to "pursue their dreams" and that of the wealthy!

there are right ways to do that and wrong ways to do that.

A gov that spent its time stopping violations of rights would be protecting all its citizens and allowing all of them to prosper.

A gov that simplistically tried to just move the money from one person to another would make the problems worse.

This is no longer free market.

You are right, it is a mixed market. And that is contrary to the intent of the founders and the constitution.

Our problems first need to be fixed by restoring a free market with regulations only to protect rights. Then the gov can spend every effort in stopping violations of rights. Imagine a gov that actually spent time stopping crime and other abuses. The poor are most hurt by crime and they would benefit the most from stopping it. Virtually every poor family has experienced, murder of a relative, rape of a relative, or a member who is in a gang - then subsequently goes to jail. These three things alone, as a guess, probably harm poor families enough to cut their incomes in half.

 

[Dr.Who]

So, you see Europe (France, England, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Italy, Spain) as "totalitarian monsters?"

That is almost laughable! Did you ever live in ANY of those countries? There is more freedom in all those countries than in the US,t.

A ranking of countries by freedom indicates that the US is the 9th most free country in the world.

All those countries rank lower, Italy is #87 out of 92 listed.

The US could be a whole lot freer too. Every single law on the books limits someone's freedom in some way. Lets get rid of every law that is not stopping one person from violating the rights of another - these restrictions we need and are authorized in the const as a purpose of gov.

 

[Dr.Who]

.they at least learn to speak at least 3 languages and have done for decades. I very much admire them. I wish the US would learn from their exemple: learning a foreign language is ALWAYS an advantage. . .and when you know two languages, it is MUCH easier to learn a 3rd and a fourth.
.

I am fluent in English, conversant in sign language, dabble in Ebonics, have no trouble talking with people from California or Tennessee or Alabama.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I am fluent in English, conversant in sign language, dabble in Ebonics, have no trouble talking with people from California or Tennessee or Alabama.

I am fairly sure Alabama does not speak English...not even sure its in the same family...it could be that they talk so damn slow I have walked away by the time they are half done with a sentience...I don't have a hour for a 2 min conversation.

 

[Dr.Who]

And, Belgian people have ALL the liberties and the freedom that matter to them. . .

They US is 77.8% free on a measure of economic freedom while Belgium is only 70.2% free on that measure,

If they want to live that way fine. But I want my and my (family friends...) to be able to be freer.

Even for them it would be my opinion that MORE freedom of every kind (not just economic) would be better. I won't force that freedom on them but would speak my mind. Even if I did get thrown in jail for speaking.

So lets see...

We know that they don't have free speech because you can't say the holocaust did not happen.

We know they don't have freedom of religion because
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-k-grieboski/discriminatory-draft-law-_b_876513.html

I started to make a list of the 10 Bill of rights and then checked to see which Belgians enjoy and which they did not. There is not a lot of information on the web on Belgium so I gave up. But they do enjoy gun rights for example. But also do not have several others in abundance.

 

[PLC1]

I am fairly sure Alabama does not speak English...not even sure its in the same family...it could be that they talk so damn slow I have walked away by the time they are half done with a sentience...I don't have a hour for a 2 min conversation.

Northerners are just in too big of a hurry, that's all.

 

[Dr.Who]

Are you talking about the "antisemitism in Europe" directly before and during WWII?

How about talking about the antisemitism in the US during that period?

It is NOT the Belgians who send a ship full of Jewish refugees back across the ocean after refusing to allow them to land ANY PLACE in America!



It is BELGIUM and HOLLAND who took those people in. . .after months at sea, trying to find a "safe place" away from Hitler's fury!

And, because Belgium and Holland got invaded by Hitler... many of those Jewish people, who would have been out of harm and safe IF the US had granted them asilum, were sent to the gas chamber, with many of the people (Belgians and Deutsh) who tried to hide them to safe their life.

Don't over play your self-righteous attitude toward the situation in Europe between 1932 and 1943. . .The US only decided to help the Jewish people, and other countries in Europe who were fighting nazism, AFTER Pearl Harbor!

There was NO help until the US itself became a victim of the association between Germany and Japan.

I have no doubt there has been antisemitism in America (the OWS have been accused of it a lot recently). But your article did not state in any way that the ship was turned away due to antisemitism. so how was that antisemitic?

 

[Dr.Who]

I disagree. Words can kill. . .and have killed.
.

Wrong. Figurative language like that is an abuse of words when used like you just did. But despite the abuse of words that you just perpetrated on us you have the freedom to say them.

People kill motivated by words - but it is the people.

Animals kill too and they generally don't have words.